Assess code change impact by tracing transitive downstream dependencies. Provide a file path and optional depth to identify all affected files before making modifications.
Calculate downstream transitive blast radius for a changed file
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| depth | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Input schema / titlePrevious value: -"mcp_rush_blast_radiusArguments"New value: +"rush_blast_radiusArguments"Output schema / titlePrevious value: -"mcp_rush_blast_radiusOutput"New value: +"rush_blast_radiusOutput"v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior; 'calculate' implies a read-only analysis and 'downstream transitive' adds directionality and recursive traversal. However, it does not disclose failure conditions, side effects, or depth semantics, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: the verb, target, and input context all appear in nine words. Every phrase adds semantic value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (two parameters) and has an output schema, so the description need not enumerate return values. Still, the agent is left uninformed about how depth affects the blast-radius traversal and whether any prerequisites exist for the changed file, which keeps it below fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It clarifies path as 'a changed file' but gives no meaning for 'depth', which is only visible as an integer default of 5. The description therefore fails to fully compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Calculate') with a precise resource ('downstream transitive blast radius for a changed file'), conveying the tool's core function. It is distinct from all sibling tools, none of which claim the same impact-analysis behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for a changed file' supplies a clear usage context: call this when a file has changed and the agent needs to know its transitive downstream impact. It does not name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, but given the unique sibling set, this is not a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.